Brit consumer group wants fair software EULAs

The British National Consumer Council has decried the business practices of 17 software companies whose EULAs contain abusive and unfair language. The companies include Microsoft, Adobe and Symantec, and the Council's objections include the EULAs' contents as well as the fact that the terms of the EULA are not visible on the outside of the box, so you don't find out what you've agreed to until you've already paid for it and brought it home.

I'd love to see a law that said any EULAs had to be printed on the packaging in 12-point type, which would leave software companies with two choices -- enormous, threatening boxes covered in dense legal type; or short, simple, fair license agreements that could fit comfortably in a couple lines on the side of the package.

"Software rights-holders are shifting the legal burden on to consumers who buy computer programmes, leaving them with less protection than when they buy a cheap Biro," said Carl Belgrove of the NCC.

"Consumers can't have a clue what they're signing up to when some terms and conditions run to 10 or more pages.

"There's a significant imbalance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the holder," he added.

Link (Thanks, Laura!)

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this blog, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

[#1 posted by Keneke , February 19, 2008 12:59 PM]

"on behalf of your employer"

LOL.

[#2 posted by andyhavens , February 19, 2008 1:40 PM]

You can have a very simple, straightforward EULA... but it will be a bit more scary than most people will want on their chocolate milk:

"By purchasing this product you relinquish all rights regarding its use or future value with regard to the manufacturer, distributor or retailer. It is yours now. Go away until you need another one."

[#3 posted by insert , February 19, 2008 1:48 PM]

I'm skeptical about the legality of those EULAs which aren't publicized on the packaging. If you've already purchased the product without having consciously assented to the EULA, I think it's arguable that you therefore own everything inside, with all the accompanying rights that don't violate statute.

Also, it's hard to prove that you agreed to a EULA. You can always claim that the EULA, because of some vicissitude of the software or your hardware setup, didn't prompt you to agree before you installed the software.

[#4 posted by Mechalith , February 19, 2008 2:28 PM]

I'm a fan of the EULA for Sins of a Solar Empire. It takes up a single page in normally sized print at the back of the game manual and is quite sensible. (it boils down to 'please don't steal and/or give away our software, but feel free to play it on your own computers all you like')

[#5 posted by Jeff , February 19, 2008 2:55 PM]

People hire smart lawyers to come up with this stuff. You want it all gone? Start by sending all the lawyers to Mars. Or culture supports layers of legal-logic for a reason: We're capitalists. It's about the money. We try to protect what we have with lots of words. Isn't that civilized?

[#6 posted by chimchim2000 , February 19, 2008 4:06 PM]

Would it be feasible to get a credit card company to issue a specialty CC that had a pro purchaser's rights EULA similar to what Cory puts on his blog or email footer?

[#7 posted by salsaman , February 19, 2008 6:54 PM]

Seems like an effective solution would be to have a set of standard, public licenses (like Creative Commons licenses) with a set of options and potential addenda. Standard licenses would (1) allow manufacturers to print licenses on packaging materials, and (2) allow consumers to have a clue about what licenses really mean.

I can't imagine current mult-screen "scroll down and click OK" EULA's are enforceable-- any attorneys care to comment?

[#8 posted by Takuan , February 19, 2008 8:37 PM]

OK, that was a decent interval:

"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability, accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee, imply, or make any representations as to its merchantability for any particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect of any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other agreement that may be substituted at any time by coming within five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a bag of dog biscuits and is used solely as your own risk."

thanks, Terry

[#9 posted by scottfree , February 19, 2008 8:48 PM]

Ok wait, I'm new. So these EULA's are actually legally binding? Does a purchase actually constitute a contract? I'm sorry if that sounds naive but I really want to know. It seems like these EULAs are attempts to dictate laws rather then follow them. For instance, if you found a razor blade in your lolly, you would not only be entitled to a new lolly but recompense for grievances resulting from the razor in the lolly, surely. So with software, if it doesn't work, replacing it costs time and energy which is translatable into currency, which one would be owed. Someone with a law degree please explain this whole thing, or else link me to where it is explained. Pretty please.

[#10 posted by Rob , February 20, 2008 5:44 AM]

Whatever happened to the simplicity of the Borland license? 3x5 card. One side. Large print.

[#11 posted by Halloween Jack , February 20, 2008 7:44 AM]

By letting me read your blog, you are agreeing that I have the right to 1) blather on about any number of subjects that I have no real knowledge of; 2) turn any blog post subject into a dirty joke ("shrinkwrap", eh? I bet she does, I bet she does); 3) accuse BoingBoing of hypocrisy on the shakiest of grounds, because I'm presumed to be free of any such taint myself unless or until proven otherwise, which you can't do because of the relative anonymity of even registered commenters, neener neener; 4) btch nd mn bt "cnsrshp" bcs Trs wn't pt p wth m ptt-mthd bllsht; 5) any and all other antics to be determined later by the Grand Council of Me. My right to poo in your sandbox is an inalienable right that precedes and supercedes the Constitution of the United States, if not the Magna Carta. So there.